Transcription

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60 FILED OCTOBER 23, 2014 STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA HEARING DEPARTMENT - LOS ANGELES In the Matter of ARSHAK BARTOUMIAN, Member No , A Member of the State Bar. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case Nos.: 13-O RAP (13-O-10974); 14-J (Cons.) DECISION AND ORDER OF INVOLUNTARY INACTIVE ENROLLMENT Introduction 1 In this proceeding, the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the State of Bar of California (State Bar) charged respondent Arshak Bartoumian (respondent) with 54 counts of misconduct involving two correlated matters and, in a consolidated matter, with substantial additional professional misconduct as found by the United States District Court for the Central District of California. (Business and Professions Code section ; Rules of Proc. of State Bar, rules to ) The charges in the two correlated matters include maintaining unjust actions (18 counts); failing to obey court orders (18 counts), and failing to report judicial sanctions to the State Bar (18 counts). The misconduct found by the United States Central District Court included findings of failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to obey court orders, failing to report judicial sanctions to the State Bar, failing to maintain respect to the court, and failing to only maintain actions that appear to be legal or just. 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all references to rules refer to the State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct. Furthermore, all statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code unless otherwise indicated.

61 On June 30, 2014, the court issued an order, based on a motion by the State Bar, dismissing 24 counts from the two correlated matters without prejudice. The court finds respondent culpable on 22 of the remaining 30 counts. In regard to the United States Central District Court matter, the court finds respondent committed extensive additional misconduct. This misconduct included failing to perform legal services with competence, failing to obey court orders, failing to report sanctions, failing to maintain respect due to the court, and failing to maintain legal or just actions. After considering the facts, the law, and the extent of the misconduct, the court recommends that respondent be disbarred. Significant Procedural History On October 24, 2013, the State Bar filed a notice of disciplinary charges (NDC) against respondent in case nos. 13-O and 13-O Respondent filed a response to this NDC on December 11, On March 30, 2014, the State Bar filed a second NDC against respondent in case no. 14-J Respondent did not file a response to the second NDC. 2 The State Bar was represented by Deputy Trial Counsel Ross Viselman. Respondent was represented by attorney David A. Clare. Trial was held on August 25 and 26, The court took this matter under submission for decision on August 26, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in California on December 4, 2000, and has been a member of the State Bar of California since that date. 2 Although no response to the second NDC was filed, respondent participated in the proceedings and the State Bar did not seek to enter his default

62 General Facts As illustrated below, respondent routinely and repeatedly filed or perpetuated lawsuits in the United States Central District Court of California that he did not intend to prosecute. These lawsuits were brought against banks or other financial service institutions under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, or related statutes. In these virtually identical cases, respondent routinely failed to file a response to defendants motions to dismiss, motions for judgment on the pleadings, or other dispositive motions. On other occasions, respondent failed to serve defendants, failed to appear at hearings, and failed to comply with the applicable rules of procedure. As defendants began filing motions to dismiss and requests for sanctions, respondent effectively gave up. He repeatedly failed to oppose these motions or participate in the proceedings. Although respondent was not opposing motions to dismiss, he continued, for a time, to file new matters that were virtually identical to those being dismissed. Case No. 13-O The Arutyunyan v. Cavalry Portfilio Services Matter 3 Facts On October 9, 2012, respondent substituted in as counsel of record in place of the plaintiff, who was pro per, in Ashkhen Arutyunyan v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, et al., case no. CV , in the United States Central District Court of California (Arutyunyan). On October 29, 2012, Arutyunyan was dismissed for failure to prosecute. Respondent remained counsel of record until March 13, 2013, when the case was terminated. On February 11, 2013, the court in Arutyunyan ordered respondent to pay sanctions to defense counsel for Resurgent Capital and Northland Group in the total amount of $13, Case no. 13-O (Counts One through Three) was dismissed prior to trial upon the request of the State Bar

63 These sanctions were based on respondent s failure to submit an opposition to the defendants motions for attorneys fees and costs. In ordering sanctions against respondent, the court deemed respondent s failure to oppose the defendants motions for attorneys fees and costs to be a concession to the allegations of bad faith and a demonstration of his consent to the attorneys fees. Respondent was or should have been aware of the sanctions award, but failed to pay any portion of the sanctions to either party. 4 Respondent also failed to report the sanctions imposed by the court in Arutyunyan to the State Bar of California. Conclusions Count Four 6068, subd. (c) [Duty to Maintain Legal or Just Actions] Section 6068, subdivision (c), provides that an attorney has a duty to counsel or maintain those proceedings, actions, or defenses only as appear to the attorney legal or just, except the defense of a person charged with a public offense. Here, respondent was only attorney of record for a short period of time before the sanctions order, and the court s finding of bad faith was based on respondent s failure to oppose the motion for sanctions. Accordingly, the court finds that there is not clear and convincing evidence that respondent maintained an unjust action, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (c). Count Four is therefore dismissed with prejudice. Count Five 6103 [Failure to Obey a Court Order] Section 6103 provides, in pertinent part, that willful disobedience or violation of a court order requiring an attorney to do or forbear an act connected with or in the course of the attorney s profession, which an attorney ought in good faith to do or forbear, constitutes cause 4 There is no evidence in the record that the court in this matter, or any other matter referenced in this decision, granted any type of motion extending respondent s time to pay sanctions or providing relief from the payment of sanctions

64 for suspension or disbarment. The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to obey a court order, in willful violation of section 6103, by failing to comply with the court s sanction order in Arutyunyan. Count Six 6068, subd. (o)(3) [Failure to Report Sanctions] Section 6068, subdivision (o)(3), provides that within 30 days of knowledge, an attorney has a duty to report, in writing, to the State Bar the imposition of judicial sanctions against the attorney of $1,000 or more which are not imposed for failure to make discovery. The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to report judicial sanctions, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (o)(3), by failing to report the sanctions imposed by the court in Arutyunan to the State Bar of California. The Yepremyan v. GC Services Matter Facts On May 21, 2012, respondent filed the initial complaint in Gayane A. Yepremyan v. GC Services LP, et al., case no. CV , in the United States Court for the Central District (Yepremyan I). Respondent remained counsel of record until July 22, 2013, when the case was terminated. On January 18, 2013, the court in Yepremyan I ordered respondent to pay sanctions to defense counsel in the amount of $30, These sanctions were based on respondent s bad faith filing of frivolous litigation and his failure to conform to the local rules. Respondent was or should have been aware of the sanctions award, but failed to pay any portion of the sanctions. Respondent also failed to report the sanctions imposed by the court in Yepremyan I to the State Bar of California

65 Conclusions Count Seven 6068, subd. (c) [Duty to Maintain Legal or Just Actions] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent maintained an unjust action, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (c), by filing a frivolous lawsuit in Yepremyan I that he did not intend to prosecute. Count Eight 6103 [Failure to Obey a Court Order] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to obey a court order, in willful violation of section 6103, by failing to comply with the court s sanction order in Yepremyan I. Count Nine 6068, subd. (o)(3) [Failure to Report Sanctions] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to report judicial sanctions, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (o)(3), by failing to report the sanctions imposed by the court in Yepremyan I to the State Bar of California. The Balasanyan v. Department Stores National Bank Matter Facts On September 5, 2012, respondent filed the initial complaint in Balasanyan v. Department Stores National Bank, et al., case no. CV , in the United States Central District Court of California (Balasanyan). On November 13, 2012, the court issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be sanctioned in Balasanyan. After the order to show cause hearing, the court gave respondent an opportunity to show, in writing, why he should not be sanctioned for bringing a frivolous claim. On or about November 26, 2012, respondent provided the court with a declaration citing numerous personal and health problems. Respondent remained counsel of record until November 27, 2012, when he was substituted out of the case

66 On January 13, 2013, the court ordered respondent to pay sanctions to defense counsel in the amount of $7, These sanctions were based on respondent s repeated filing of frivolous litigation and his failure to defend against motions to dismiss. Further, the court rejected respondent s attempts to blame his lack of performance on his health problems, noting that respondent s health problems did not prevent him from filing perhaps more than 100 virtually identical cases in the Central District. Respondent was or should have been aware of the sanctions award, but failed to pay any portion of the sanctions. Respondent also failed to report the sanctions to the State Bar of California. Conclusions Count Thirteen , subd. (c) [Duty to Maintain Legal or Just Actions] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent maintained an unjust action, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (c), by filing a frivolous lawsuit in Balasanyan that he did not intend to prosecute. Count Fourteen 6103 [Failure to Obey a Court Order] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to obey a court order, in willful violation of section 6103, by failing to comply with the court s sanction order in Balasanyan. Count Fifteen 6068, subd. (o)(3) [Failure to Report Sanctions] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to report judicial sanctions, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (o)(3), by failing to report the sanctions imposed by the court in Balasanyan to the State Bar of California. Bar. 5 Counts Ten through Twelve were dismissed prior to trial upon the request of the State - 7 -

67 The Hanna v. BMW Financial Services Matter Facts On September 7, 2012, respondent filed the initial complaint in Hanna v. BMW Financial Services, LLC, et al., case no. CV , in the United States Central District Court of California (Hanna). On November 13, 2012, the court issued an order to show cause why respondent should not be sanctioned in Hanna. 6 After the order to show cause hearing, the court gave respondent an opportunity to show, in writing, why he should not be sanctioned for bringing a frivolous claim. On or about November 26, 2012, respondent provided the court with a declaration citing numerous personal and health problems. Respondent remained counsel of record until November 26, 2012, when he was substituted out of the case. On January 13, 2013, the court in Hanna ordered respondent to pay sanctions to defense counsel in the amount of $2,345. These sanctions were based on respondent s repeated filing of frivolous litigation and his failure to defend against motions to dismiss. Respondent was or should have been aware of the sanctions award, but failed to pay any portion of the sanctions. Respondent also failed to report the sanctions imposed by the court in Hanna to the State Bar of California. Conclusions Count Sixteen 6068, subd. (c) [Duty to Maintain Legal or Just Actions] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent maintained an unjust action, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (c), by filing a frivolous lawsuit in Hanna that he did not intend to prosecute. 6 The court considered this matter together with Balasanyan (above)

68 Count Seventeen 6103 [Failure to Obey a Court Order] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to obey a court order, in willful violation of section 6103, by failing to comply with the court s sanction order in Hanna. Count Eighteen 6068, subd. (o)(3) [Failure to Report Sanctions] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to report judicial sanctions, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (o)(3), by failing to report the sanctions imposed by the court in Hanna to the State Bar of California. The Gevorgyan v. Creditors Interchange Receivables Management Matter Facts On May 4, 2012, respondent filed the initial complaint in Sargis Gevorgyan v. Creditors Interchange Receivables Management, LLC, et al., case no. CV , in the United States Central District Court of California (Gevorgyan). Respondent remained counsel of record until December 13, 2012, when the case was terminated. On December 13, 2012, the court in Gevorgyan ordered respondent to pay sanctions to defense counsel in the amount of $2, These sanctions were based on the court s finding that respondent prosecuted this action in bad faith. Respondent was aware of the sanctions award, but failed to pay any portion of the sanctions. Respondent also failed to report the sanctions imposed by the court in Gevorgyan to the State Bar of California. Conclusions Count Nineteen 6068, subd. (c) [Duty to Maintain Legal or Just Actions] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent maintained an unjust action, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (c), by filing a frivolous lawsuit in Gevorgyan that he did not intend to prosecute

69 Count Twenty 6103 [Failure to Obey a Court Order] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to obey a court order, in willful violation of section 6103, by failing to comply with the court s sanction order in Gevorgyan. Count Twenty-One 6068, subd. (o)(3) [Failure to Report Sanctions] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to report judicial sanctions, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (o)(3), by failing to report the sanctions imposed by the court in Gevorgyan to the State Bar of California. The Sargsyan v. Unifund Government Services Matter Facts On July 20, 2012, respondent filed the initial complaint in Serzhik Sargsyan v. Unifund Government Services, LLC, et al., case no. CV , in the United States Central District Court of California (Sargsyan). Respondent remained counsel of record until October 29, 2013, when the case was terminated. In or about October 2012, multiple named defendants in this matter filed motions to dismiss. The defendants also sought sanctions against respondent on the basis that he knowingly and in bad faith continued to prosecute a complaint that failed to state a claim. On October 18, 2012, the court in Sargsyan ordered respondent to pay sanctions to defense counsel in the amount of $3, These sanctions were based on the court s finding that respondent knowingly and in bad faith continued to prosecute a complaint that failed to state a claim. Respondent was or should have been aware of the sanctions award, but failed to pay any portion of the sanctions. Respondent also failed to report the sanctions imposed by the court in Sargsyan to the State Bar of California

70 Conclusions Count Twenty-Eight , subd. (c) [Duty to Maintain Legal or Just Actions] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent maintained an unjust action, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (c), by filing a frivolous lawsuit in Sargsyan that he did not intend to prosecute. Count Twenty-Nine 6103 [Failure to Obey a Court Order] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to obey a court order, in willful violation of section 6103, by failing to comply with the court s sanction order in Sargsyan. Count Thirty 6068, subd. (o)(3) [Failure to Report Sanctions] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to report judicial sanctions, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (o)(3), by failing to report the sanctions imposed by the court in Sargsyan to the State Bar of California. The Vartanian v. United Recovery Systems Matter Facts On June 12, 2012, in Stepan Vartanian v. United Recovery Systems, case no. CV , in the United States Central District Court of California (Vartanian), respondent substituted in as counsel of record in place of the plaintiff who was pro per. Respondent remained counsel of record until November 1, 2012, when the case was terminated. On August 6, 2012, the court set an order to show cause hearing regarding sanctions against respondent. On September 10, 2012, the court dismissed this matter due to respondent s failure to submit a new joint report for the third time. In this same order, the court ordered 7 Counts Twenty-Two through Twenty-Seven were dismissed prior to trial upon the request of the State Bar

71 respondent to pay sanctions to defense counsel in the amount of $2, The order did not indicate that respondent maintained a frivolous or otherwise unjust action. Respondent was or should have been aware of the sanctions award, but failed to pay any portion of the sanctions. Respondent also failed to report the sanctions imposed by the court in Vartanian to the State Bar of California. Conclusions Count Thirty-Four , subd. (c) [Duty to Maintain Legal or Just Actions] There is not clear and convincing evidence that respondent maintained an unjust action in Vartanian, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (c). Count Thirty-Four is therefore dismissed with prejudice. Count Thirty-Five 6103 [Failure to Obey a Court Order] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to obey a court order, in willful violation of section 6103, by failing to comply with the court s sanction order in Vartanian. Count Thirty-Six 6068, subd. (o)(3) [Failure to Report Sanctions] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to report judicial sanctions, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (o)(3), by failing to report the sanctions imposed by the court in Vartanian to the State Bar of California. The Ayvazian v. Moore Law Group Matter Facts Respondent was the attorney for Hakob Ayvazian in Hakob Ayvazian v. The Moore Law Group, LLC, et al., case no. CV , in the United States Central District Court of 8 Counts Thirty-One through Thirty-Three were dismissed prior to trial upon the request of the State Bar

72 California (Ayvazian). On June 26, 2012, the court ordered plaintiff to pay sanctions to defense counsel in the amount of $2,750. These sanctions were based on the court s finding that the plaintiff filed a frivolous complaint. Respondent was not ordered to pay any portion of these sanctions, and, therefore, he did not have a duty to report these sanctions to the State Bar of California. 9 Conclusions Count Forty 6068, subd. (c) [Duty to Maintain Legal or Just Actions] There is not clear and convincing evidence that respondent maintained an unjust action in Ayvazian, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (c). Count Forty is therefore dismissed with prejudice. Count Forty-One 6103 [Failure to Obey a Court Order] There is not clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to obey a court order in Ayvazian, in willful violation of section Count Forty-One is therefore dismissed with prejudice. Count Forty-Two 6068, subd. (o)(3) [Failure to Report Sanctions] There is not clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to report judicial sanctions in Ayvazian, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (o)(3). Count Forty-Two is therefore dismissed with prejudice. 9 While the parties stipulated that respondent was the attorney for Hakob Ayvazian, he was not the attorney of record in Ayvazian. In its order granting sanctions, the court noted that there was a high probability that respondent drafted the complaint as a ghostwriter. The court s speculation was based on the fact that the complaint was almost identical to multiple federal complaints filed by respondent

73 The Minasyan v. Creditors Financial Group Matter Facts On May 9, 2012, in Hasmik Minasyan v. Creditors Financial Group, LLC, et al., case no. CV , in the United States Central District Court of California (Minasyan), respondent substituted in as counsel of record in place of the plaintiff who was pro per. Respondent remained counsel of record until November 29, 2012, when the case was terminated. On June 25, 2012, the court in Minasyan ordered respondent to pay sanctions to defense counsel in the amount of $3, These sanctions were based on the court s finding that the conclusory allegations set forth in this action were baseless, frivolous, and a clear abuse of judicial process. Respondent was or should have been aware of the sanctions award, but failed to pay any portion of the sanctions. Respondent also failed to report the sanctions imposed by the court in Minasyan to the State Bar of California. Conclusions Count Forty-Three 6068, subd. (c) [Duty to Maintain Legal or Just Actions] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent maintained an unjust action, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (c), by maintaining a baseless and frivolous lawsuit in Minasyan that he did not intend to prosecute. Count Forty-Four 6103 [Failure to Obey a Court Order] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to obey a court order, in willful violation of section 6103, by failing to comply with the court s sanction order in Minasyan. 10 Respondent and his client were ordered jointly and severally liable for this amount

74 Count Forty-Five 6068, subd. (o)(3) [Failure to Report Sanctions] The court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to report judicial sanctions, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (o)(3), by failing to report the sanctions imposed by the court in Minasyan to the State Bar of California. The Yepremyan v. Asset Acceptance Matter Respondent was the attorney for Gayane Yepremyan in Gayane A. Yepremyan v. Asset Acceptance LLC, et al., case no. CV , in the United States Central District Court of California (Yepremyan II). On May 7, 2012, the court in Yepremyan II ordered the plaintiff to pay sanctions to defense counsel in the amount of $1,500. These sanctions were based on the court s finding that the plaintiff failed to appear and failed to comply with the court s orders. Respondent was not ordered to pay any portion of these sanctions, and, therefore, did not have a duty to report these sanctions to the State Bar of California. 11 Conclusions Count Forty-Nine , subd. (c) [Duty to Maintain Legal or Just Actions] There is not clear and convincing evidence that respondent maintained an unjust action in Yepremyan II, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (c). Count Forty-Nine is therefore dismissed with prejudice. Count Fifty 6103 [Failure to Obey a Court Order] There is not clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to obey a court order in Yepremyan II, in willful violation of section Count Fifty is therefore dismissed with prejudice. 11 While the parties stipulated that respondent was the attorney for Gayane Yepremyan, he was not the attorney of record in Yepremyan II. the State Bar. 12 Counts Forty-Six through Forty-Eight were dismissed prior to trial upon the request of

75 Count Fifty-One 6068, subd. (o)(3) [Failure to Report Sanctions] There is not clear and convincing evidence that respondent failed to report judicial sanctions in Yepremyan II, in willful violation of section 6068, subdivision (o)(3). Count Fifty- One is therefore dismissed with prejudice. Case No. 14-J The Central District Court Disciplinary Matter On February 27, 2014, a three-judge panel for the United States Central District Court of California issued a disciplinary order adopting findings that respondent committed extensive professional misconduct in the Central District Court of California and ordering that he be disbarred from the Central District Court. Business and Professions Code section , subdivision (a), provides, in pertinent part, that a certified copy of a final order by any court of record of the United States, determining that a member of the State Bar committed professional misconduct in that jurisdiction, shall be conclusive evidence that the member is culpable of professional misconduct in this state. As a result, the State Bar initiated the above-entitled proceeding pursuant to Business and Professions Code section , subdivision (b), and Rules of Procedure of the State Bar, rules The issues in this proceeding are limited to: (1) the degree of discipline to be imposed upon respondent; (2) whether, as a matter of law, respondent s culpability in the proceeding would not warrant the imposition of discipline under the laws or rules applicable in California at the time of respondent s misconduct in the other jurisdiction; and (3) whether the proceeding lacked fundamental constitutional protection. (Section , subdivision (b).) Respondent bears the burden of establishing that the conduct for which he was disciplined by the United States District Court for the Central District of California would not warrant the imposition of discipline in California and/or that the proceeding lacked fundamental constitutional protection. Unless respondent establishes one or both of these, the record of

76 discipline in United States District Court for the Central District of California proceeding is conclusive evidence of culpability of misconduct in California. (Section , subdivisions (a) & (b).) Facts On November 21, 2013, Section 3 of the Standing Committee on Discipline (Section 3) issued its Final Report re Bartoumian Referrals (Final Report). The Final Report made findings based on three separate referrals. The first referral was from Judge Dale S. Fischer in the matter of Kodesh v. Aurora Loan Services (Kodesh). This matter was the subject of respondent s prior discipline before the State Bar, case no. 12-O (S209209). In Kodesh, respondent stipulated to violating section 6103 by willfully disobeying court orders in October, November, and December The second referral was from Judge Stephen V. Wilson in the matter of Tervardanyan v. Creditors Financial Group (Tervardanyan). In Tervardanyan, the Final Report found that respondent failed to appear at hearings, failed to respond to dispositive motions filed by defendants, and failed to respond to sanctions requests. Further, respondent failed to respond to an order to show cause and the case was dismissed with prejudice as a result. Judge Wilson sanctioned respondent a total of $41, for his conduct in this matter. To date, respondent has paid $1,500 towards the outstanding sanctions in Tervardanyan. The third referral was from Chief Magistrate Judge Suzanne Segal regarding eight distinct cases. Based on Chief Magistrate Judge Segal s referral, Section 3 conducted a more expansive independent investigation into respondent s conduct before the United States District Court. 13 The court assigns Kodesh no weight in the present proceeding, since it was previously adjudicated in respondent s prior discipline

FILED MARCH 16, 2015 STATE BAR COURT OF CALIFORNIA HEARING DEPARTMENT LOS ANGELES In the Matter of ANDREW MacLAREN STEWART, Member No. 204170, A Member of the State Bar. Case Nos.: 13-O-15838-DFM DECISION

People v. Verce. 11PDJ076, consolidated with 12PDJ028. June 11, 2012. Attorney Regulation. The Presiding Disciplinary Judge suspended Joseph James Verce (Attorney Registration Number 12084), for a period

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO PREHEARING INSTRUCTIONS For the purpose of facilitating disciplinary hearings and related proceedings that are conducted pursuant to Rule V of

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2013 Term No. 12-0005 FILED January 17, 2013 released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA LAWYER DISCIPLINARY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT -- SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Notice of Settlement of Class Action If you performed at Scarlett's of Hallandale, Scarlett's of Ybor Strip or Scarlett's of Toledo as an Exotic

RULES FOR LAWYER DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA December 1, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA RULES

This information has been prepared for persons who wish to make or have made a complaint to The Lawyer Disciplinary Board about a lawyer. Please read it carefully. It explains the disciplinary procedures

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 105,258 In the Matter of BART A. CHAVEZ, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed April 8, 2011. Published

Case4:12-cv-03288-KAW Document2-1 Filed06/25/12 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION STANDING ORDER FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE KANDIS A. WESTMORE (Revised

LR2-400. Case management pilot program for criminal cases. A. Scope; application. This is a special pilot rule governing time limits for criminal proceedings in the Second Judicial District Court. This

Rule 82.1 Who May Appear as Counsel; Who May Appear Pro Se Only members of the bar of this Court may appear as counsel in civil cases. Only individuals who are parties in civil cases may represent themselves.

Filed 2/11/15 Estate of Thomson CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

Rule 214. Attorneys convicted of crimes. (a) An attorney convicted of a [serious] crime shall report the fact of such conviction within 20 days to the [Secretary of the Board] Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

SMALL CLAIMS RULES Rule 501. Scope and Purpose (a) How Known and Cited. These rules for the small claims division for the county court are additions to C.R.C.P. and shall be known and cited as the Colorado

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 112,569 In the Matter of LUCAS L. THOMPSON, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed February 27, 2015.

Attorney Grievance Procedures in Connecticut Your Rights as a Complainant in the Grievance Process State of Connecticut Judicial Branch www.jud.ct.gov Attorney Grievance Procedures in Connecticut To the

ENROLLED Regular Session, 1997 HOUSE BILL NO. 2412 BY REPRESENTATIVE JACK SMITH AN ACT To enact Chapter 33 of Title 13 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, comprised of R.S. 13:5301 through 5304,

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 112,059 In the Matter of PETER EDWARD GOSS, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed December 5, 2014.

Inquiry Concerning A Florida Lawyer This pamphlet provides general information relating to the purpose and procedures of the Florida lawyer discipline system. It should be read carefully and completely

Supreme Court of Louisiana FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE #031 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Per Curiams handed down on the 27th day of May, 2016, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2016-B

CALIFORNIA FALSE CLAIMS ACT GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 12650-12656 12650. (a) This article shall be known and may be cited as the False Claims Act. (b) For purposes of this article: (1) "Claim" includes any

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA At a Regular Term of the Supreme Court of Appeals, continued and held at Charleston, Kanawha County, on September 29, 2014, the following order was made and entered: Re: Approval

Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law. State of Arkansas 90th General Assembly A Bill Regular Session, 2015 SENATE BILL 830 By: Senator D. Sanders

NEW YORK CITY FALSE CLAIMS ACT Administrative Code 7-801 through 7-810 * 7-801. Short title. This chapter shall be known as the "New York city false claims act." 7-802. Definitions. For purposes of this

Filed 8/27/14 Tesser Ruttenberg etc. v. Forever Entertainment CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying

AN ACT IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA To amend the District of Columbia Procurement Practices Act of 1985 to make the District s false claims act consistent with federal law and thereby qualify

PLEASE NOTE: Legislative Information cannot perform research, provide legal advice, or interpret Maine law. For legal assistance, please contact a qualified attorney. Be it enacted by the People of the

****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

Jurisdictional Limits The justice courts have exclusive jurisdiction or the authority to hear all civil actions when the amount involved, exclusive of interest, costs and awarded attorney fees when authorized

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY In the Matter of: ) ) MICHAEL A. CEBALLOS ) Bar Docket No. 329-00 ) Respondent. ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF MICHIGAN S ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE SYSTEM HISTORY Michigan s system for attorney discipline has existed in its current form since 1978. With the creation of the State Bar of Michigan

As amended by Chapter 16 of the 2013 Minnesota Session Laws. 15C.01 DEFINITIONS MINNESOTA FALSE CLAIMS ACT Subdivision 1. Scope. --For purposes of this chapter, the terms in this section have the meanings

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Gilbert, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-522.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

NEW YORK FALSE CLAIMS ACT STATE FINANCE LAW, ART. XIII (2013) 187. SHORT TITLE This article shall be known and may be cited as the "New York false claims act". 188. DEFINITIONS As used in this article,

IN RE: STEPHEN L. TUNNEY NO. BD-2011-091 S.J.C. Order of Term Suspension entered by Justice Lenk on January 10, 2012. 1 Page Down to View Memorandum of Decision 2008: The Year in Ethics and Bar Discipline

OAH 7-1005-22621-2 STATE OF MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE In the Matter of Nationwide Solutions, David Newman and Mitch Matthews FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS

INDIANA PARALEGAL ASSOCIATION CODE OF ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND RULES FOR ENFORCEMENT PREAMBLE The Indiana Paralegal Association ("IPA") is a professional organization comprised of individual

To ensure the functioning of the site, we use cookies. We share information about your activities on the site with our partners and Google partners: social networks and companies engaged in advertising and web analytics. For more information, see the Privacy Policy and Google Privacy &amp Terms.
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.